Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 9, 2013 10:00pm-10:31pm PDT

10:00 pm
competing interest. i do believe that we have lessons to learn from marine and we have all along incorporating those difference. marine is a different jurisdiction and what san francisco is trying to do is something unique and it's unique also because of the diverse population that we have and i think it's something that we are very proud of the equation here. i'm ready to move forward. i do hope that we use this as an opportunity to expand where we are and to invite all the different partners to make this program even better. but i think that not moving forward would go against the decision that the board of supervisors has made. i also want to acknowledge the work of the puc, our general
10:01 pm
manager and his staff and miss malcolm in particular because i know she has been working with many of the parties involved with cca for a very long time. you are a very quick learner. you have hit the ground up and running. and you are willing to work with them and take into account. what i need to know that we do more work out to provide what the outlook looks like. lastly to our lafco staff, to jason and miss miller, thank you for the amazing work and of course we wouldn't be here without the leadership of our chair commissioner, chair avalos,
10:02 pm
thank you very much for your steady leadership in getting us to this point and i look forward to action today. >> thank you commissioner campos and of course i inherited a lot of this from you. thank you for your leadership. >> commissioner moran. >> thank you. i tried to remove my request for speaking but the computer didn't operate. >> i am eager to hear from the public because i know there is a lot of people from the public here and i want to make sure that we can hear as many comments as possible. i think this is a historic day. i have been on this commission for five years. it was already half baked at that time and marine energy authority was already off to the races and it was a
10:03 pm
big question mark about whether that program was going to success and now we looked into this program and said it looks like they are on the verge of success and we decided to model with this model and it was at that time that the shell contract and the programs and what they can really provide as far as renewable energy as far as in-house gas reductions and jobs which is something that we all want to move towards. i am a big believer in this promise of the local build out. icon occur with commissioner campos on the rec's, as many know
10:04 pm
that's been a little of a hard pill to swallow in increasing to include more recs. to create a successful program and launch the local build out as quickly as possible which really means jobs and energy independence which i think is a key thing because we know our grid is challenged. so i believe this can help and especially our most vulnerable community to have a very reliable power source. so we need to generate additional re -- revenues and the resource mix to get that online as soon as possible. i really want to commend the staff because it's been a long run. thank you for getting to this in the last months. with
10:05 pm
the competitive rate that pg & e proposed tariff option and i would challenge you slightly further because i'm looking at slide 11 here, and we see we are at 11.9 and they are at 11.5 which seems so close. what would it be possible to set an 11.5. the early conversations were about a meet or beat rate for pg & e. so i would like to propose that we set that rate at 11.5 so that it's really a part of something that we can really at least knowing that those could change and that we are going to try to come in lower and pg & e might get higher, but at least from a public perspective we have met the pg & e proposed rate. i guess that's a question and then maybe i will say a couple
10:06 pm
things after that. >> yes, commissioner, there is no reason that we couldn't set the rate today at 11.5 cents. we have a little head room in that rate compared to what we know of cost today. we've actually created some tables for you and given you that opening to adopt that rate today with a resolution. >> that's great. >> are those tables available to share? >> yes. i believe they are on the table here for the public. tables are on the table. >> are they in our packet too? >> yeah. >> the 11.5 rate? >> there is a july 9th packet. it doesn't have -- with this language on the bottom? sit
10:07 pm
>> yes. you should have gotten it this morning. >> if you can tell us what rate the 11.5 rate would be on? >> i just want to make one final comment on the rate piece and just to clarify my understanding of what we have before us today. because i did hear and i didn't realize this, but if we adopted today, the not to exceed rate there is still an additional 6-8 months before the program would launch. so my understanding is that what we would vote on today is just the rate and these next several months because i still think there are outstanding questions around. i know there is a resolution from the labor council and further conversations that should be
10:08 pm
had with labor and the environment community, with marine, with sonoma and my understanding is there is time between now and launch of program to answer those tiany outstanding issues but that our vote today is really on this not to exceed rate which i'm proposing would be at 11.5 to meet what pg & e's proposed rate is. >> yes. i would like to respond and to something that supervisor campos said as well. this program has benefited from the position of the stake holders and from our collaboration with marine and son ma and others. it's a community program and we need their support in order for this to be successful. i tried to reach out to a couple of labor friends and i haven't heard back from them but i expect to and certainly hope to. i want to address their concerns to the extent we can and, i mean
10:09 pm
the coming six months to get our rates down even lower, to do more planning and be ready for several items on the build out of the okay -- day of the launch and get more feedback from the community. >> mr. chairman? >> i'm not prepared to vote for a rate issue today because i do believe that there are substantive issues that need to be resolved with our friends in labor. coming from labor i want to make sure that we make every attempt to have those discussions. that doesn't in anyway mean that i'm opposed to this proposal or for it to move forward. i want it to move forward. i want to make sure that we make every attempt to reach the labor. the information is very minimal
10:10 pm
compared to the data that i have received. so i would argue that we take the time to instruct puc staff to sit down with our friends in labor and figure out if there are compromises, and if there are not, there are not and then at that time to take a vote on this issue, i would feel more comforta giving and our general manager and i'm willing to participate if you need my presence and any commissioner can participate as well to see if we can sit down with labor because the issues that they have outlined. it's not just ibw, and pg & e. i have never known labor management to be in a situation like this. but at the end of day we need to take an opportunity. >> our san francisco puc management has spoken with members of the labor group. our
10:11 pm
general manager and assistant general manager. >> this manager has been unsuccessful to deal with these issues, i doubt that. i think you ought to go to the drawing board with labor to address some of these issues. if there is not, then there is not. at least we would have made the effort. i would feel more comfortable trying to make one last effort before i vote on this proposal. >> we would do that whether or not you adopt a rate today. >> as i said to you i'm not prepared to vote on a rate until you do so and come back to us with the results of those deliberations and go forward from them. i respect these two gentlemen from my left to right for the leadership they have provided and for the other
10:12 pm
supervisors that are here. i'm also late to this discussion and having been appointed later on. i respect what's happened with the environmental community and puc staff. they have provided tremendous opportunities for discussion and resulted in a lot of issues that you have related to today and you have come far with these issues and i appreciate the work that you have done because you bring expertise from the state and i think that's important as well. >> thank you, president torres. i really respect your having come from labor, i have come from labor as well. i have received the letters from the labor council and frankly labor council resolution has come from staff from ibw and i don't believe the two are different from one another. i also feel that what is in there in terms
10:13 pm
of suggestions or statements aren't exactly accurate. they are talking about one of the letters from ibw that we have a contract with shell and it's not the case. there is almost a whole vacuum that exist between the puc and labor. actually the puc has contacted labor throughout the build out for our water system and managing our program program as well as. there is a relationship there, that relationship will continue regardless of what action we took today. it's something that is fruitful and respectful and has been without major strout for many years. i think it's a delay that makes this vote. i think it's time we move forward with a vote today. hopefully it can happen with your support if
10:14 pm
you company care about moving forward with this program that we can have it either this morning or this afternoon and other commissioners of the puc as well. i think we are at the point now where we know there will be a relationship with labor that will end the puc and cca that happens, we do want labor to be at the table and ensure that the jobs we create are union jobs and want to create the positions that are in good working conditions and that's something that we value and we provide a framework for that moving forward as we try to build out and run a program here in san francisco. >> commissioner moran? >> thank you, a question on the clarification, the slide you gave us on the next steps, i'm trying to figure out which one of these represents the puc's action to confirm that all the
10:15 pm
conditions precedented have been met. when we moved, it was conditioned on some appropriations had been made and c puc had made decisions and that would come back to us for final action. which one of these items represents that? >> actually i think it's not on there but i understand that we would need to come back to you with a final confirmation. >> barbara hale, assistant manager for power. it's the final rates presented to commission. the resolution you adopted that authorized us to go forward with the board of supervisors stated with those conditions present were and directed us to come back to the commission and present that we have met those conditions
10:16 pm
precedent we would do that in the context of presenting you with the final rates and the shell confirm. that's that step that is 106 days to 150 days from now. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner mar? >> thank you, i wanted to go back to commissioner vetore's motion to reduce the 11.9 rate to 11.5 rate. i'm very supportive for that. i want to thank her for the five years of work on this and the organizations that we are hopeful to hear from in a few minutes and they are work to reduce the not to exceed rate significantly. i think that's been a big victory. i'm supportive of going that extra few feet to meet the pg & e green tariff rate and i also want to say that barbara miller
10:17 pm
gave us the document that shows that there is a plan for the 11.5 cents rate and i want to acknowledge that to mr. campos mentioned the common ground that is emerging with many parties in terms of looking at making this competitive rate work. i also wanted to acknowledge mr. breed's point that the local build out is critical for creating green jobs and that key part of it today hopefully we do not have anymore delays and we can move forward today. it's still going to be what, six months before the clean power sf can launch, but i'm hoping that we don't delay further and we do everything we can to continue to work with our labor partners but there is so much more common ground to make this 11.5 rate. i'm hoping the commission will support that. >> before commissioner campos
10:18 pm
speaks, i want to make sure, commissioner vetore did you make a motion? >> yes. i would like to make it 11.5 in that resolution. >> in terms of a second for that would it need to come from a puc commissioner? >> do we have a commissioner that would like to second that motion? okay. we'll hold that for now. mr. campos? >> i know that we should probably turn to public comment because i think it's important to hear from the public. i want to note something about the labor piece and i know that for everyone of my colleagues, the response from labor is very important. and i have met with mr. stern and i know that he's
10:19 pm
here and i encourage the staff to continue the discussions that they have had with ibw and not just them, i did speak with paulson the director of labor council and we had a number of conversations about this and what we both agreed that irrespective of what happens today regarding rates that it's important for those discussions to continue. it's important for us to take those concerns into consideration and i know that they want to work with the puc, with lafco. again, i do believe that i'm a half glass full kind of person. i think that we have to continue those discussions and i think there is an opportunity for us especially given where the market is to figure out how we expand this program to make it look like something that everyone can buy into.
10:20 pm
>> thank you, commissioner campos. >> i would like to hear public comment as well and i would like to go on record with my sense of urgency in more of sort of a global perspective of this community choice program because i don't really think i mentioned that from a big picture perspective and i just hope that even if the motion does not get seconded or this vote does not happen today, that i can urge my fellow commissioners on the lafco and puc to move with this because we know we are faced with a changing climate and especially those from lowest income are going to suffer from the
10:21 pm
climate. i would ask that we do everything we can to reduce gas emissions. >> thank you. >> we can open this item for public comment. if i call your name please come up in the order that you are called. >> al weinberg, sue, jennifer , david. >>al left. >> thank you. i'm sue. first of all i want to agree with miss
10:22 pm
vetore. i think this is a global issue. we have a very sad i think lack of reducing emissions globally and i think as americans and especially san franciscans as we tend to lead the state and the country and the world we need to stop global emissions. i did calculations for expenses. for 2013, the median income is $71,000. average rate in san francisco one bedroom $2500 per month. if you take this out and subtract the state taxes for irs you get this income. if you have rent. it's a $30,000 per year, rent, you subtract $30,000 from $53,000. you still have $23,000. i do well,
10:23 pm
$17,000 i eat almost organic food. you still have $6,000 left in a year. this is what you could be paying for things like pg & e. i have $50 for pg & e. i can pay a thousand percent more for my pg & e bill and my expenses would not exceed my income. this is very minimal and it's our responsibility to do this. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello, thank you to the commissioner and staff for all the work that you have done here today. i think commissioner vetore is hitting it on the head. the most important thing for our planet is to pass this to show the rest of the country what it
10:24 pm
means to take a hundred percent renewable step into healing our planet. the clean power san francisco represents this reasonable and it gives the competitive cap. i think 11.5 is a good point because it's going to put a lot of public support around it. i'm a san francisco resident. i live in the city. i want to be part of something like this. like i think that's -- what i said before if we meet these climate goals set forth by the sf environment, it's going to be a great thing for all of us. thank you for your time. i think that's it for me. >> thank you, next speaker
10:25 pm
please. >> hi, my name is jennifer, i'm a resident of san francisco. i would like to say thank you to the commissioners and the staff for the work that you have done to reduce the not to exceed rates. i strongly urge that you complete the not to exceed rate so we can focus towards insuring the robust program. i would like to say that san francisco would give control over where we get electricity and renewable facilities which will be a long term resource for the city to bring down and stabilize cost for energy. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> thank you for letting me
10:26 pm
talk today. i'm cameron, i'm a resident for four years. student at san francisco state studying environmental science. i really think that this is important step for san francisco to switch over from fossil fuels to renewable energy. it's renewable, it's local. it's clean energy. so clean power sf is in line with goals for san francisco to lower our greenhouse gas emissions and mediate these climate issues. the proposed rate is low and fair. it would be reasonable for even lower income residents. i believe that based on the outcome of the previous surveys that were done for the response to a much higher rate than what is proposed today that a vast majority of residents will be in favor of this program. renewable energy is more reliable and sustainable over the long-term and the rate is competitive and fair. i pass
10:27 pm
that rate today. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i will call more cards. hunter stern, jackson. >> i'm david mccord. the chair of the bay chapters energy committee sierra club. and we've had a long and productive process getting to this point. i want to thank the staff for their hard work to bring the not to exceed cap down to the level that is going to work. and now it's time to move ahead. if you implement green power san francisco and begin the build out of local
10:28 pm
renewable energy that will bring the city's carbon foot print down and create jobs for san franciscans. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi, hunter stern. san francisco resident and supporter of shell shock. so, three things: recs are not real green power. let me say that again, recs are not real green power. these are not my words. these are words of former general manager mr. ed harrington. he said this to this body three years ago. he said that consistently until the point that he retired. what was passed by the board last september was not a rec's based program. recs are energy, they
10:29 pm
don't create energy, they are not renewable in the sense that energy is not generated through recs. in fact, we, the ibw and labor in general has worked very hard to eliminate recs as much as we can because they don't produce electricity. in california where we have 20 percent of our energy coming from renewable sources currently and we are on our way to 33 percent, we don't need recs. they are not a viable approach. i must say we we were surprised when this proposal actually came through. recs don't contribute to work and jobs. as was mentioned the city is already generating electricity renewable locally and the information you heard in terms of commitment to local build out, we are now part of the san francisco labor council which approved a resolution and
10:30 pm
i did author it that supports community choice aggregation because it has to be done in a way to support workers. we are going to support workers but those elements are not yet in the plan and we will and we promised before and we'll promise here today to continue to work and make sure that happens. supervisor avalos. >> thank you very much. >> i have a question of the witness? >> he's not a witness. >> mr. stern, miss malcolm indicated that you haven't gotten back to her regularly as expected. >> i had a conversation with ken paulson, he didn't indicate that he had a chance to speak with miss malcolm. she and i did have a chance to